자동차손해배상보장법위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 500,00) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant prior to the determination of ex officio.
Article 46(2) of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 12987, Jan. 6, 2015) (amended by Act No. 12987, Jan. 6, 2015) is amended, and the upper limit of fines is below KRW 5 million and below KRW 10,000,00. The Addenda to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 12987, Jan. 6, 2015) stipulates that the said amended Act shall enter into force on the date of its promulgation.
Therefore, even though Article 46(2)2 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act applies to the instant facts charged (Operation of a vehicle which is not covered by mandatory insurance on May 19, 2014), the lower court erred by applying Articles 46(2)2 and 8 of the current Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, which is a corporation at the time of the act, more punishment than the Act at the time of the act.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.
[Discied Judgment] The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court is identical to the description of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Article 46(2)2 and Article 8 of the Act on the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation (Amended by Act No. 12987, Jan. 6, 2015); Selection of fines for criminal facts;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the order of provisional payment is that the defendant operated to scrap the instant vehicle so there is room for somewhat considering the circumstances of the crime, and the defendant is old and economically difficult.